How climate change and anti-nuclear fanatics are making energy a luxury good

****

Germany. That place we're supposed to emulate. Land of eco-friendly cities, anti-nuclear protests, pacifism and campaigns against gentrification. The world's fourth largest economy. Migrant-welcoming manufacturing giant. The place where fans still stand at football matches, where there aren't speed limits on the motorways and where beer is drunk from litre steins (except in Cologne where it comes in tiny glasses and is mostly froth). Yeah, Germany.

Home of the world's most expensive electricity. The country where energy is almost a luxury good:

When Stefan Becker of the Berlin office of the Catholic charity Caritas makes a house call, he likes to bring along a few energy-saving bulbs. Many residents still use old light bulbs, which consume a lot of electricity but are cheaper than newer bulbs. "People here have to decide between spending money on an expensive energy-saving bulb or a hot meal," says Becker. In other words, saving energy is well and good -- but only if people can afford it.

A family Becker recently visited is a case in point. They live in a dark, ground-floor apartment in Berlin's Neukölln neighborhood. On a sunny summer day, the two children inside had to keep the lights on -- which drives up the electricity bill, even if the family is using energy-saving bulbs.

Becker wants to prevent his clients from having their electricity shut off for not paying their bill. After sending out a few warning notices, the power company typically sends someone to the apartment to shut off the power -- leaving the customers with no functioning refrigerator, stove or bathroom fan. Unless they happen to have a camping stove, they can't even boil water for a cup of tea. It's like living in the Stone Age.

This situation is entirely the result of a combination of climate change fanaticism and anti-nuclear panic which means that German energy supply system is both inefficient and also obscenely expensive:

This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.

If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the "phantom electricity" the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as "negative electricity prices."

Over the coming week or so, the climate change fanatics will be shifting into top gear - trying to persuade us all to change to the German model. A torrent of articles, news reports and documentaries will pour onto an unsuspecting public. These will talk of 'zero-carbon emissions', of the urgency of the challenge, of melting ice and dying polar bears, and will conclude with exhortations to change our wicked, sinful ways and embrace greenery.

Who cares if this means poor folk are living hand to mouth in damp flats they can't afford to heat of light. Who cares if steel mills close and aluminium smelters fold. Who's bothered if the lights are dimmed because the power supply is unreliable. We'll have save the planet won't we? Errr....

On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

Great strategy!

....

...and they want these all over Bingley Rural?

****

They burst into flames, they kill birds and the don't generate much electricity.

Oh and the wind blows them over:

The £250,000 tower, which stood as tall as a ten storey building, was hit by gale force gusts of 50mph. 

The structure then collapsed at a farm in Bradworth, Devon, leaving a "mangled wreck".

Yep, wind turbines are such a brilliant solution to our energy problems!

...

"Energy Stealth Tax Doubles EDF Price Rise" - the headline that wasn't!

****

The renewable and social obligations placed on energy providers provide a masterclass example of stealth taxation. Today we're urged to be cross with the big energy providers, calls are made for enquiries (although this is a pretty standard Miliband response these days) and even for windfall taxes.

But here (courtesy of The Register) is an interesting little statement from EDF (emphasis is mine):

The company has seen a sharp increase in costs since the start of the year, with transmission and distribution charges rising by 9%, and the costs associated with the implementation of obligatory renewable, energy efficiency and social schemes increasing by more than 50%. The cost of buying energy has also risen by 4% for next year ... The cost of buying energy accounts for around 50% of a typical energy bill. The other half is made up of non-energy costs.

Now that's pretty clear although you won't hear Nicky Campbell running a phone in on how a government stealth tax - sold to us by Whitehall as not costing us a penny - is behind the ridiculous rise in domestic energy costs. Of that 11% rise, the lion's share is down to distribution costs and "renewables, energy efficiency and social" schemes.  As The Register comments:

This system of cranking up everyone's energy bill hits the less-well-off disproportionately hard: and it's also dishonest, as politicians and energy firms alike decline to tell you bluntly why your bills keep going up.

Just remember that, then, the next time you hear a politician stigmatised as a climate sceptic. A vote for that politician is a vote against this sort of vicious price rise, this sort of stealth tax targeted on ordinary folk who find their energy bills a significant cost - the sort of hit that most of us will find pretty painful, given the current economic climate.

Worse still, by tucking this information at the bottom of its statement, EDF are complicit in the fooling of the public. It should be the headline something like:

"Energy Stealth Tax doubles EDF Price Rise"

....

Were Tim Yeo a local councillor would he be arrested?

****

Tomorrow, amongst other tasks, I will be updating my 'Declaration of Interests'. In my case this is a pretty dull document from which you can glean where I live, where I work and that I own a load of shares in Barclay's Bank (I describe this as 'significant to me but insignificant to them'). Oh, and I'm a member of Cullingworth Conservative Club.

When I'm at a council meeting and one of these interests is touched on by the matters under discussion, I am obliged to declare that interest. And, if that interest is prejudicial I must withdraw from the meeting and take no part in any decision. This latter situation would cover significant pecuniary interests such as business dealings, ownerships and relationships. It applies to me and to those close to me. Failing to make a declaration is now an offence carrying criminal sanctions.

Which I guess brings me to Tim Yeo:

...it was then pointed out that a company of which he is chairman, TMO Renewables (which last year paid him £60,000, at up to £1,000 an hour), has just signed a memorandum of understanding with the largest farming corporation in China to supply it with feedstocks for biofuels. TMO’s latest annual report states that doing business with China has become a “key focus” of its activities. 

Were Mr Yeo a local councillor there's a distinct possibility that the police would have arrived on his doorstep at 5am to arrest him for failing to make a declaration - indeed a declaration that may well be prejudicial.

Members of Parliament debated a law to apply to other elected people - local councillors - without at any point realising the double standard they were installing in law. Put pretty simply, were the Commons select committee on energy and climate change a local council committee, it is highly unlikely given his significant financial interests in its subject matter that Mr Yeo could be a member let alone chairman.

That a man who makes ten times his parliamentary salary from the business of renewable energy chairs a committee influencing government policy and decision-making in that area simply wouldn't happen were MPs subject to the same rules they applied to us local councillors.


...